AMA vs sanct round 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

It's not an issue at all. It would be a double standard if it's ok for any non-Abs to rob free gc and Sanc can't simply because Havoc was about to give notice. AMA should have realized their own mistake and gotten a CF with Sanc. Abs kds act in their own interest unless there is cause to do otherwise. AMA wasn't hostile, why would Sanc not be free to rob gc? You guys have nothing to cry about.

---

Sanctuary robed us we waved them. Its very simple. Havoc notice was send after Sanctuary rob us but its hard to prove so its unclear situation. If goodz want to blame some one its his alliance mattes for interfere and mess it. From what i know Sanctuary got notice too. No idea if its was before rob us or after but you can say they try to dodge his notice too with start hostile with us.

In short Dorje messed it all for all, only mods win from increased forum activity :P

See what I did there? Anymore posts about the bet in here will result in bans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

Abs kds act in their own interest unless there is cause to do otherwise.

---

Securing a crown for your alliance isn't a cause? *shrugs*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elitbg

Sanctuary robed us we waved them. Its very simple. Havoc notice was send after Sanctuary rob us but its hard to prove so its unclear situation. If goodz want to blame some one its his alliance mattes for interfere and mess it. From what i know Sanctuary got notice too. No idea if its was before rob us or after but you can say they try to dodge his notice too with start hostile with us.

In short Dorje messed it all for all, only mods win from increased forum activity :P

---

Pew's notice to Sanc is legit if they did it before you and Sanc exchanged hits. The difference is Sanc is not trying to dodge their notice from Pew, you are the one trying to not be noticed by Havoc. It does not matter if Sanc robbed you prior to Havoc giving notice (if that was even the case). What is known by everyone is that they gave you notice BEFORE any hits were exchanged between you and Sanc so it is a valid notice. You just are afraid to lose so its natural/obvious that you want to get out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elitbg

Sanctuary robed us we waved them. Its very simple. Havoc notice was send after Sanctuary rob us but its hard to prove so its unclear situation. If goodz want to blame some one its his alliance mattes for interfere and mess it. From what i know Sanctuary got notice too. No idea if its was before rob us or after but you can say they try to dodge his notice too with start hostile with us.

In short Dorje messed it all for all, only mods win from increased forum activity :P

---

Robbing isn't hostile. Havoc followed the deal and gave notice when appropriate, then you instigated a hostile with Sanc. The notice is legitimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

Robbing isn't hostile. Havoc followed the deal and gave notice when appropriate, then you instigated a hostile with Sanc. The notice is legitimate.

---

Soo, if robbing is not a hostile act then why is it not permitted while there is a cf between two kingdoms?
After all it's not a hostile act according to you so by that logic it should obviously be allowed.

Any act designed to harm the recipient of the act is per definition a hostile act, sanct stole money and did ops with the obvious intent to hurt MA in their upcoming war against Havoc(or just to hurt them and benefit themselves, what the actual goal was doesn't matter because harm was inflicted and that is all that counts), this is clearly an act of hostility meaning that if the cf deal between MA and havoc forbade notice during hostile then the notice is illegitimate.

Sanct and MA sat for days and traded ops despite the meter never reaching even unfriendly, I'm pretty damn sure both kingdoms considered the situation to be hostile even before any attacks were traded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elldallan

Soo, if robbing is not a hostile act then why is it not permitted while there is a cf between two kingdoms?
After all it's not a hostile act according to you so by that logic it should obviously be allowed.

Any act designed to harm the recipient of the act is per definition a hostile act, sanct stole money and did ops with the obvious intent to hurt MA in their upcoming war against Havoc(or just to hurt them and benefit themselves, what the actual goal was doesn't matter because harm was inflicted and that is all that counts), this is clearly an act of hostility meaning that if the cf deal between MA and havoc forbade notice during hostile then the notice is illegitimate.

Sanct and MA sat for days and traded ops despite the meter never reaching even unfriendly, I'm pretty damn sure both kingdoms considered the situation to be hostile even before any attacks were traded.

---

Hostile is defined by presence of a button. Also have cases of situations where it is not hostile by game definitions but is clearly hostile with cow hits exchanging, and other things of the nature. "Just ops" has never been classified as hostile by any kingdom. If someone robs you and then you get notice after its legit. It sux when stuff like that happens but these things happen all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elitbg

I'm reasonable too. We can CF sanctuary for 20k acres 100 mill gold and 1 week extend cf with havoc. There is my offer.

---

I lol'd. Not going to lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elitbg

1. noting wrong if havoc notice us and Sanctuary don't interfere.

---

Hey there, new kid, every kd gets robbed these days, protect your gold. Chosing to wave our ally after we noticed you because they robbed you is pretty lol way to dodge them, imagine if every kd waved every uncf'd kd that robbed their 0tpa provs what the game would be like. We'd all really suck, just like you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proteus

Hostile is defined by presence of a button. Also have cases of situations where it is not hostile by game definitions but is clearly hostile with cow hits exchanging, and other things of the nature. "Just ops" has never been classified as hostile by any kingdom. If someone robs you and then you get notice after its legit. It sux when stuff like that happens but these things happen all the time.

---

The button is a merely formality(maybe an important one but still just a formality), it is the acts behind that are the determinant, the button is merely there as a game mechanism implemented to simplify having conflicts.

Everyone might want to take note of the implications of this because since ops apparently is not a hostile act I think everyone should feel encouraged by Proteus to do all sorts of ops into whatever wars rage(and by extension the rest of Abs) have since they clearly would not be hostile acts(especially those accused of being in an alliance with MA, you should throw every op you can against havoc in the upcoming war they will have with MA), you have the blessings of the mighty Proteus himself to do so. Because Proteus that is what you are implying, either ops are not hostile under any circumstance or they always are, you can't have it both ways.

Also a Nap/cf deal is not a game definition but one made up by the players and the reason behind the no notice during hostilities clause Elit claims to have with Havoc is obviously to prevent crap such as this from happening so by that definition the situation that has occurred should clearly be considered hostile since the intentions of the nap/cf agreement and therefore the clause should still stand even by your own reasoning that things such as cow hits are hostile even when they are not considered as such by the game code.
Also leaking intel on the forum/in game is not designated by the game as a hostile act either yet goodz is clearly upset over it and considers it a hostile act against havoc since he wanted reparations from MA for it.

Hostile is Hostile. When you go to a kingdom page and it says your relationship is "Hostile" that is when you are hostile. It has been determined in many threads, sending dragons isnt hostile, a few hits isn't hostile, ops isn't hostile. It doesn't matter if its with "allied kingdoms" or after "eowcf", HOSTILE IS HOSTILE. Unfriendly is not Hostile its Unfriendly. FFS it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Both sides are going to play it however they want, it doesn't matter how it "looks" whether AMA is hiding in a (now) hostile with Sanc or whether they were ready to fight Havoc or not, the fact is....Sanc was NOT hostile with AMA, Havoc noticed at the appropriate time, AMA then WAVED Sanc which then made them HOSTILE. Take what you will from that, the little details about stealing gold is insignificant when using the word HOSTILE in the context.

That is going off the Utopia terms on the kingdom page and yes it is that black and white, if it wasn't then there wouldn't be the function to show "hostile" on the meter.

Herpa Derp.

I'm not going to argue about definition details. If you check game rules there is "spirit on game", same going about deals. Our deal was made for avoid situations 2vs1. Giving notice few minutes before/after your ally kingdom start rob us is clear abuse deal because put us in situation 2vs1. Whew some one rob me i'm waving him or do something other in return. Its not hide or dodge, its pay back. Its why we had few weeks hostile with TFC last age. Now kd name is different but situation is similar.
Insist from havoc notice was given only make situation harder for solve for both kds. Its clear we wont CF sanctuary now after all dmg they made to us for get waved next minute from Havoc. Hostile will continue till we get war.

Its legit hostile, there was dragon exchanges, cow hits and both kds have in game hostile.

Apparently "learn to play" applies to even the most decorated of players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

Apparently "learn to play" applies to even the most decorated of players.

---

Guess you address it to Proteus :P

It's a legit hostile now because the meter says it now. Nothing more nothing less. Anything else is moot.

I guess we need a proper agreement documentation in the future when there is any agreement between non-abs and abs. Those with the correct/precise wording clauses, and a proper due diligent process before the ageement/signing of any deals.

For example:

Hostile acts are defined as the follow:
a) any action by one party against the other party which contributes to the meter.
b) Mage/Thievery ops of more than 5 times by one party against the other party which contributes to the meter.

For avoidance of doubt, hostile acts does not represented by the degree of the relations.

Mage ops: Any operations as stipulated in the Utopia Guides.
Thievery ops: Any operations as stipulated in the Utopia Guides.

An event of deal breaking will subject to the Utopia Court of Justice in accordance to law of Utopia. If found guilty, the guilty party shall penalized with a minimum penalty of not less than individual deletion and a maximum penalty of kdwide deletions.


I'm not a lawyer and my english sucks. I believe the poeple around here can come out with a better wordings :D